Recurring revenue should follow recurring usefulness.

A medicines team may revisit evidence, prepare new reviews, coordinate implementation and examine what followed. The frequency and burden differ by setting. Our thesis is that a recurring commercial relationship should be anchored to a repeated decision or responsibility, rather than access to a dashboard that is rarely needed. The initial task is to establish which work recurs naturally and whether the customer experiences enough unresolved difficulty each time to justify continued use.

The customer might prefer a periodic review service, internal staff time or an existing system with a modest process change. A proposed commercial study would compare these alternatives alongside a continuing PHARMORIS arrangement. Inputs would include task frequency, effort, support needs and the consequences of outdated information. The comparator should include the entire delivery burden. A low headline software price can still be unattractive if training, checking and integration make continued use expensive.

Early evaluation should distinguish meaningful repeated use from log-ins, reminders or demonstration activity. We would look for a user returning to complete a recognised task, maintaining an agreed review or making use of an updated evidence case. The proposed output is a recurring-use map linked to the customer's actual calendar and responsibilities. A smaller number of consequential tasks may be commercially more valuable than frequent interaction that adds little to the team's decisions.

We propose identifying which conditions would make a buyer renew: a repeated task, trusted outputs, manageable support and visible organisational usefulness. Those are hypotheses until observed over a relevant period. Early usage cannot establish long-term retention or expansion revenue. We would record why a customer might discontinue, including changes in staff, budgets or competing systems. A model that depends on permanent enthusiasm from one internal champion is more fragile than a task embedded in accountable work.

A bounded first investigation would follow one recurring workflow across an agreed evaluation period and compare the effort and usefulness of alternative delivery models. Progress would require repeated demand and delivery economics that remain credible after support is included. We would revise the model if customers value occasional expertise more than ongoing software, or stop if continued use adds burden without a meaningful advantage. Investment should support the relationship the evidence suggests, rather than force every use case into a subscription.